Conspiracy theorists have their voice now.

He's Tim Donaghy, a guy who admitted playing with the results of NBA games to feed his gambling habit, a guy who's going to jail because of that.

Donaghy admitted tipping off gamblers about how to bet on games he worked, then said he made calls on the court to affect the point spread.

ESPN once showed a clip of a playoff game a year ago in which the Phoenix Suns' Amare Stoudemire got in early foul trouble, and the Suns lost. Donaghy was standing at midcourt and whistled a defensive foul on Stoudamire on the other side of the court.

Nothing happened on the play, and both game announcers were perplexed. ''I don't know what Tim Donaghy saw,'' the analyst said.

What he saw were dollar signs.

Now Donaghy has turned on the NBA with a vengeance, claiming a 2002 playoff series between the Sacramento Kings and Los Angeles Lakers was extended intentionally, and that officials targeted a player for fouls in a 2005 series. (The assumption is it's Yao Ming of the Houston Rockets).

This raises a lot of questions that are tough to answer.

Commissioner David Stern has done a remarkable job marketing the NBA and making it real again, but his words on this incident ring hollow. He has taken to blaming the media and insisting ''there is only one criminal here.'' That being Donaghy.

It's a little much to say Stern is fiddling while Rome burns, but he is like Captain Renault in Casablanca, the guy who was ''shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here.'' Next thing you know, the NCAA will be surprised to hear that cheating goes on in major college sports.

Stern can blame the media all he wants for furthering this story. Media types clearly are not perfect; reporting on this explosive issue goes beyond all propriety.

But the media don't matter.

The people Stern needs to address are the fans, the people who watch on TV and pay for tickets, and the players, who (hopefully) are giving their best effort to win and now have to wonder if their best efforts are tarnished by the guys with the whistles.

Let's be fair here and say that most officials probably are clean and upright. They can miss calls — the Los Angeles Lakers beat the Detroit Pistons for a championship because a ref whistled Bill Laimbeer for fouling Kareem Abdul-Jabbar when the two weren't in the same area code — but they try.

That's what we want to believe, at least.

Problem is, one dishonest guy sure can smear a group, which Donaghy has done.

Donaghy reportedly did this because he got mad at the NBA because the league said he should repay the $1 million it spent to investigate him as part of his court proceedings. He heard that and evidently said, well the heck with them ...they want that, I'll bring up everything I know. This is called stirring the proverbial hornet's nest.

Maybe Donaghy tried to save his own keister by bringing up stuff that already has been investigated, which is Stern's claim. That might have validity, as other refs told ESPN.com that the feds asked many questions about Dick Bavetta. But it's also interesting that ref Hue Hollins did not say ''no way'' when asked if Bavetta ever ensured a home team won. Instead his answer was, according to ESPN.com: ''I have no idea because I didn't work with him a lot.''

See how Donaghy gave voice and face to the conspiracy theories?

Many probably chuckled when they first heard Jeff Van Gundy claim in 2005 that a league official had told him Yao had been singled out for fouls in a playoff series. Now, it makes a person wonder, especially since the Rockets and Van Gundy and Yao lost the series after winning the first two games.

Conspiracy types point to calls and officiating as the reason certain teams win, and the reason the NBA gets a Celtics-Lakers Finals. That it's all about money, and the league manipulates things to get what it wants for its financial gain.

This claim seems near-preposterous, because it would take much more than one official to fix a game, but Donaghy seems to indicate more than one official was involved.

Stern is standing in the corner yelling and crying that ''there is only one criminal.'' But if Donaghy did it, can we be certain others didn't? This guy was involved in this stuff for more than a year. He worked with other refs, traveled with them, talked to them.

Maybe he is a rogue, but is there not enough doubt at this point to wonder? Haven't we all seen a call, raised our eyebrows and wondered what in the world that was about?

Players union chief Billy Hunter was even quoted on ESPN as saying the sport couldn't become professional wrestling. Guess what? To some it already has.

And if Donaghy is not being truthful with the feds, would it not hurt his cause when sentencing comes? It would seem that Barry Bonds and Marion Jones might be able to tell him a little bit about messing with the federal investigative agencies.

The NBA hired an independent investigator to look into this issue and will release a report after Donaghy is sentenced. It sure seems like there's a few more rocks to turn over. At this point, defensiveness does not seem to be the NBA's best stance.

An offensive approach that includes a statement to this effect might better serve Stern, the league, its players and the fans: ''We are more than skeptical of Mr. Donaghy's statements, but we will continue to investigate and ensure that what he said never happened and never will happen. We know people are innocent until proven guilty in our criminal courts, but in the court of public opinion integrity is vital when it comes to a professional sports league. We vow to ensure our integrity is intact, and if it's not, to fix whatever is chipping at it.''

The only way to disprove a conspiracy theory, after all, is with facts.

BROWNS: Bentley's exit isn't clear cut

Heard from a former NFL-type the day LeCharles Bentley cleared his physical.

The conversation went something like this:

''This won't take long,'' the former NFL-type said.

''What do you mean?''

''He's not going to be on the team. They cleared him to cut him.''

''What?''

''He clears a physical, it takes away grievances when he's cut.''

Next day, Bentley was cut.

The same guy said:

''That didn't take long.''

''You really think they cleared him to cut him?''

''Yep. They got him on the field to show he was healthy and to admit in the paper that he was. Now he's done.''

''But can't he still sue them for all that happened?''

''Yep, but now the Browns have a bit more of a case.''

OK, then.

I do remember Errict Rhett trying to come back from Lisfranc surgery and looking terrible in training camp. He was cut after an intrasquad scrimmage. I wondered to an official from another team if he had a grievance, and the official asked if Rhett had practiced. Told yes, the official said, ''That's all the team needs, to show he was on the practice field.''

On Thursday, a Pittsburgh radio station asked if I'd come on to talk about the Browns. They wouldn't ask if they knew how little I had to say, but they asked and I agreed. Lo and behold, one of the hosts was a former Browns scout who was with the team for one year in the Butch Davis regime.

I mentioned the theory about clearing Bentley to cut him, and the scout said: ''Yeah, that happens a lot.''

That's one side of Bentley's departure.

Here's the other.

The same day Bentley rejoined practice, I heard from a friend of a friend of Bentley's. (Guy hears from a lot of people in this job.) The connection is a bit around the corner, but everyone involved that I know is trustworthy.

He vowed that Bentley would play somewhere this season, and if it weren't for the Browns, it would be somewhere else. And Bentley would start.

Wow, I thought. Pretty conflicting information.

Believe me, he said. This guy is coming back with the nastiest attitude you can imagine.

Next day, Bentley was released.

And the friend of the friend of the friend of the cousin twice removed said: He'll sign with Baltimore and come back and stick it to us. Mark my words.

Talk about swirling conspiracy theories.

All this is pretty typical of the Bentley saga, where there seemed to be as much misinformation as information circulating. His staph infection was kept from the public, and last week Bentley called it life-threatening. Staph infections can be life-threatening, so he wasn't lying.

Was he about to lose his leg? Did he hide from the Browns during his rehab? Did he hate the team? Did the butler do it in the library?

Some folks with the team are adamant the Browns treated Bentley well, that all the rumors of this, that or the other thing have been unfair to the team and its medical staff.

Maybe it simply was best for Bentley to go. There was a raging current under this proverbial bridge. The Browns had done the right thing rebuilding their offensive line without counting on Bentley, and he wanted to start.

General Manager Phil Savage has shown he will move a guy, either via trade or release, if the guy feels he can start and he won't be starting in Cleveland. He traded Jeff Faine after signing Bentley, after all.

Perhaps it's just better that Bentley moved on. Even if it means he sticks it to his old team.

Perhaps it's just best to say this was a potential storybook tale that clearly did not have a very happy ending.

RANDOM THOUGHTS:

• Victor Martinez is out for two months. Puts him on the shelf with Travis Hafner, which means the Indians have lost their 3-4 hitters along with their 2-3 starters.

At some point a team no longer is viable because of injury or poor play or whatever.

Martinez's injury sure seems to put the Indians closer to not being viable. As in not being able to contend for the division title.

Don't know many teams in the major leagues that could lose two starting pitchers and the 3-4 hitters and contend.

• True as that statement is, isn't it getting old and tiring with these Cleveland teams? Injury this, that and the other thing.

Phooey.

Next time a guy gets hurt, take him out to Wal-Mart and buy a new part and put him back out there.

• Hey, it's a JOKE.

• OK, the Boston Celtics are convincing me. They are a legitimately good team. Paul Pierce, too. Guy has shown up big time in these Finals.

• Not like Pau Gasol has, mind you, but he's shown up.

Many complaints in Los Angeles that Gasol has shown he's soft, but let's be honest: The Celtics' defense and physical play make a lot of guys timid.

Be nice if a 7-footer actually made a dunk, though.

• The Game 4 comeback by the Celtics was actually worth two wins, not one.

Because it won the Finals for the Celtics. Doesn't matter what other game the Celtics win, they're the champions.

It's just too difficult for a team to erase the doubts created by blowing a big lead like that in the Finals. The Lakers won't be able to come back. Maybe for one game, but not for three.

• I've said it before and I'll say it again: The Celtics were stretched to the limit by one team: the Cavaliers. (Spare me, Atlanta, and that seventh game; the Celtics wiped up the Hawks like they were squished mangoes.) Only the Cavs threatened the Celtics. We need to keep that in mind.

Until next time, there you have it.